>Tom Rauch wrote:
>>> Rp is different from the R of the supressor
>>> resistor. Did you not just read Ian's notes?
>>
>>No, I deleted most of the messages that built up over three days.
>>Ian almost never needs checked. By the way, it would be better if we
>>avoided jargon like Rp. Rp means different things in different
>>applications, and use of excessive jargon can confuse everyone.
>>
>
>I mean the same as the textbooks mean, and the same as Wes Stewart
>meant, namely: when the whole network is considered as a single
>equivalent resistance and a single equivalent reactance in parallel,
>then that resistance is Rp and that reactance is Xp.
It seems to me that we start with a parallel inductor /resistor
suppressor circuit, the conductance (G) and susceptance (B) of which has
an Admittance, Y. This admittance may be converted to an equivalent
impedance, represesented as a series Xp-Rp. The terms Rp and Xp can be
confusing because they are not part of a parallel circuit. They are in
series, and they represent the equivalent Z of the original parallel L/R
circuit's admittance.
>
>Likewise when the whole network is considered as a single equivalent
>resistance and a single equivalent reactance in series, then
>that resistance is Rs and that reactance is Xs.
These are seemingly not the terms used in Wes' measurements.
>........
Rich...
R. L. Measures, 805-386-3734, AG6K, www.vcnet.com/measures
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|